If You Could Only Have 2 Speakers in Your HT-only Setup...............

Two front. Set for no rears, no center, no sub, and possibly "phantom" center.

Could a single front handle panning sound effects? I know two fronts alone can.

Then two fronts for me. I like surrounds, but I think the front two (three) contribute way more to my experience.

Also, I think modern AVRs can do center/surround. If I remember from setting up mine, you can turn on/off the front l/r, center, and the surrounds in pairs. I'm not sure if receivers can route all info to the center if the fronts are turned off like they can the other way around, but it would be easy to test.

I also wonder if a 6.1 receiver can turn off the side surrounds and just have the rear single speaker active, or if they turn all three off. Anyone with one of those who can tell us?

Ah, I wasn't sure. Never bothered to test it.


Probably go with a 3.0/3.1. Any configuration with a single surround, the surround would have to be directly behind you, wouldn't it? Considering our ears are more front biased in regards to listening, I just don't know how much I could get out of a single rear speaker. Maybe if the rear was a dipole or something with more dispersion, but I'd have to hear it first.

5.1/7.1 setups at least put the speakers more to the sides, and I have heard some distinction from my rear surrounds in regards to panning effects back there. Not very often, but it does occur.

I would probably use it as a surround.

For the original poll, losing the stereo image up front is too big to use one front and one rear.

If one is building a two channel home theater room, then it should be a lot less acoustically absorbent.

If I could only have two speakers in my home theater, I wouldn't waste my time building a home theater.

... and we have a WINNER!

I recall seeing a graphic of a proprietary two channel 1 x front + 1 x rear channel/speaker system many years ago. It was designed for 'faithful reproduction' of concert hall performances (and NOT home theater!) I think the rear speaker had a polar delivery, and stood 'away' from the rear wall (I expect the front was direct...?) It was from sometime around the start of stereo albums, so I expect it was somebody's 'candidate' for an alternative use for the other channel in the groove! Sorry, can't remember the name (only the picture in my head!) I bet you'll find on the net somewhere!

Single dipole directly behind me. That would put me in the speaker's null, keeping the surround field from localizing at the middle of the back wall AND minimizing back-to-front imaging reversals. Most of the surround information reaching my ears would be reflections off the side walls, so I'd get some sense of spaciousness and envelopment.

Maybe I'm being overly critical but I need to ask.

1) the OP has been participating on AVS for 6 years. Why ask?
2) Is the OP seeking a "home theater" or some type of suround sound?
3) What is the type and size of the room?
4) is this for a primary viewing/listening room?

Just curious...

either way, Stereo with phamtom center is the best option. Or... a soundbar?

I think it's just a purely hypothetical, as AV receivers aren't made for the front/rear two speaker setup anyway. I think he's just asking if you'd rather go for stereo front or for a surround effect.

In order of my priorities/preferences with the possibility of being able to add 1 speaker at a time in addition to the front L/R...

1. Front 2 speakers (by far)
2. Subwoofer
3. Center
4. Subwoofer #2
5. Surrounds